The process of evolution is defined as, 'the developmental progression from one form to another by adapting to environmental changes or capitalizing on advantageous mutations toward a positive result', and this is known as 'The Theory of Evolution'. So first let us look at what a 'theory' actually is. Dictionary.com defines a theory as:
the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
- a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
So firstly it is a coherent group of tested propositions, regarded as correct. Well evolution is certainly regarded as correct in the western world; but not universally. As to being tested, I am not sure how the theory has been tested, evolution certainly cannot be tested under laboratory conditions, and it certainly has not been tested in the field or observed. Richard Dawkins ex Oxford professor and self-styled high priest of evolution, admits this is so,
“Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.” When asked what he mean by “it's been observed?” He answered, “The consequences of... It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective…”
The interviewer prompted, “Circumstantial evidence.”
To which DAWKINS replied, “Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English. Evolution is true. I mean it's as circumstantial as that, but it's as true as that.”
So the person who is probably the most high profile proponent of evolution admits that it cannot be observed, and therefore cannot be tested. Circumstantial evidence is not proof, it leads only to an opinion or an hypothesis. I wonder how many people have been wrongly convicted in a court of law, on circumstantial evidence. If the 'theory' cannot be tested then as a theory it falls at the first hurdle.
But what of the evidence itself, surely evidence, circumstantial or not will prove something. We of course have the fossil record, does this not prove that evolution actually happened, yes it can do, but it can also suggest other options, it is a matter of interpretation, because the fossil record is a snapshot in time, and it varies depending where you are in the world.